15 ms·

Employees who decline genetic testing could face penalties under proposed bill

• emodendroket 10y ago
  Absolutely insane policy.
• apathy 10y ago
  This is severely fucked. Wellness programs do little or no good but do allow employers to offer incentives for participation. This on the other hand is GATTACA level fuckery. GINA took many years to be put in place; now the proposal put forward will potentially cause people to lose health coverage or their job based on things they cannot control. Potentially their kids, too, since these idiotic "wellness" programs are administered by poorly regulated third parties. This is very, very bad stuff.
  • Vadoff 10y ago
    In a world with mandatory genetic testing, genetic engineering in order to "give your child the best possible start" will definitely ring true.
    • M_Grey 10y ago
      I wonder what traits we'll program for? Intelligence, maybe, but that's tough to manage and I'd guess that without a complete understanding you'd get a lot of madness. Physical traits will be easier to select for, especially gross ones like size and overall strength. Selecting out congenital illness would be another step. If you could though, if you had a clear understanding of how Trait A and cluster of genes/epigenetic factors Z were related... then what traits would be valued? Some would want attractive, intelligent offspring. After a while though, I wonder if people would really want that? If you're the kind of person who wants to control the development of your kid's moral/religious/political/etc. views (and lots of people do) then you're not going to get what you want out of that. You might want to select for traits that are just... like you.
      • hkmurakami 10y ago
        What parents will want will be informed by the environment around them. For example, when parents perceive the economy to be closer to zero sum, with clear "winners and losers", they tend to push their children more to get every edge they can in credentialing and jockeying for the best position for financial security (read: Tiger Moms). Hard to say what said environment will be in the future when more tools are available.
        • M_Grey 10y ago
          Then maybe you want a kid who doesn't sleep much, has a high drive, and low empathy. That assumes you want success uber alle though, what if you want your kid to believe that handling poisonous snakes is the key to salvation, or something like that? Then you might need to breed a very different kind of mind.
          • hkmurakami 10y ago
            Well exactly. Hence its hard to say what we'll desire given that we don't really know what things will be like. Who knows, pale skin may sadly be more desirable than ever before if things continue their current course. :(
            • M_Grey 10y ago
              It's weird to think about... people already try to look like particular types so much with just makeup, clothing, and surgery. As you say, it might be that we get some weird genetic monocultures for a while. Then of course, maybe they'll all die off. Breeding is a tricky business, as any farmer or botanist will tell you, and at least there you're taking it slowly.
      • adrianN 10y ago
        Health, physical attractiveness and intelligence are the obvious ones. We already know many genes that are associated with cancer and other illnesses, so screening for those and discarding embryos could already be done with today's technology. I suspect eye, hair and skin color aren't very difficult either. Seeing how popular skin bleaching products are I could see many parents paying money for lighter offspring. Intelligence is more difficult as you already said, but as we get better at reading the genetic code, that'll become possible as well. If this kind of genetic engineering became legal and socially accepted, there surely would be a lot of money for researching these kinds of things.
  • M_Grey 10y ago
    To be fair, kids born today are pretty fucked for so many reasons. In a way, this kind of dystopian future is averted when you consider the rate of accelerating ocean warming, permafrost melting, etc. It seems likely that all problems short of that which is going to end us, sort of gets subsumed. All of these social problems are in the context of a failing ecosystem that is being increasingly overtaxed. So... the kids never had a chance.
    • ryanwaggoner 10y ago
      Is there any credible research that climate change is going to "end us"?
      • M_Grey 10y ago
        By "end us" I mean end our civilization... extinction is unlikely.
        • ryanwaggoner 10y ago
          In that case, my question still stands. I'm asking because I frequently see this kind of climate change alarmism on forums (it's the end of civilization, billions will die, etc) but my sense from an admittedly cursory reading of the estimates is that the dangers of climate change are likely to be an epic refugee crisis from coastal flooding, famine, and war. Hundreds of millions will die, and many more will see a substantial decrease in quality of life for generations. So, horrible. But I think it's wrong to say that it represents the end of civilization. For one thing, like most things, the consequences of climate change will be felt very unequally. The richest countries of the world are likely to see a much smaller impact in terms of famine and death. Granted, no one knows for sure, but as someone who is NOT skeptical of the cause and effects of climate change, I am somewhat skeptical that in 100 years it'll be as bad as many internet chicken little types seem to think. I probably sound more dogmatic than I am though, so please do share some research and change my view :)
          • wavefunction 10y ago
• adolph 10y ago
  At some level I think to myself "first they came for the druggies and I was too young to say anything, just pissed in a cup like everyone else, then they came for smokers and I didn't say anything, then they. . . ." Where is this all going and in what combination of futures does it turn out well?
• vkreso 10y ago
  Gattaca? I must say that I am extremely interested in the forthcoming genetic policy debate.
  • quickben 10y ago
    From the outside, this whole thing appears completely SNAFU. It's right up there with gender/religion/race discrimination, but, everybody is discussing is calmly.
• greglindahl 10y ago
  Recent discussion with 87 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13843364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13843364
• r00fus 10y ago
  Thanks GOP led house. All about our freedom I see.
• projektir 10y ago
  I only have one response to this: WTF.
• woogiewonka 10y ago
  I would have never imagined it would come to this. Now I'm reading about it and can't believe what I'm seeing. This is worrisome on a whole new level.
• state_less 10y ago
  We need to get some people to the nascar track, put the foam hats on folks, it's time to start yelling fire! This is Republican policy taxing your family unless you give your family's bloodline to the corporation. Insurance company: Looks like you might have an elevated risk of heart attack. Your premium will be half your paycheck. Sorry about the bad luck, buddy. God bless and send our love to your defective children.
• gojiberry 10y ago
  Just a clown and his party Making America Great Again #MAGA
• drawkbox 10y ago
  We've got to separate healthcare from employers before this goes to far. Companies have no business in your health and we still tie health insurance to employment as a legacy error not a benefit. Many problems arise from healthcare provided from the job such as ageism, culling the sick, making it harder to change jobs or start companies, and losing healthcare as you change jobs, not to mention helping the fixed price / backroom market that is healthcare. We'll never fix anything until we unbind healthcare from employers and make it more consumer focused independently (single payer or completely independent/private). We don't get any other personal insurance from work. We need to outlaw allowing companies to facilitate the healthcare plans and go fully independent like all other insurance (auto, home, life etc). Benefits can be paid in extra money not false benefits that lead to invasions of privacy. Why would you want your company knowing anything about your health? We supposedly live in a free society but then work at mini feudal/sharecropper empires with dictators and barely any say in what is acceptable.
  • alanh 10y ago
    I completely agree with your sentiment. “We don't get any other personal insurance from work” isn't quite true, though. Many companies include at least minimal life & disability insurance.
  • programmarchy 10y ago
    The history behind our current nonsensical scheme started with FDR capping wages during the great depression, which spurred companies to offer "perks" like healthcare to recruit talent. An example of one market intervention leading to another, and another, ad nauseam. Totally agree that insurance should be decoupled from corporations. The way the "market" is regulated hampers people from working independently or starting small businesses because it's so damn expensive for individuals to pay for healthcare themselves.
    • StClaire 10y ago
      Kaiser of Kaiser Permanente started out making ships during WW2
    • 10y ago
• quantum_state 10y ago
  It's simply insane to propose such a bill ... they may as well as people to sell body parts to cover healthcare costs ... it's simply not acceptable!
  • witty_username 10y ago
    What is wrong with people selling their organs?
    • nisa 10y ago
      Almost 50% of US citizens don't have enough money on the bank to replace a broken 400$ item. How many would out of desperation i.e. healthcare costs for relatives sell an organ? 1: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secr...
      • witty_username 10y ago
        You seem to be implying that is a bad thing. What is wrong with that? Allowing them to donate organs gives them more choices. Who owns a person's body? And donating the organ helps people who needs organs. The person who donates and the person who receives do this voluntarily if they feel they benefit. I think it's deplorable that people are dying from lack of organ donations while there are people with healthy organs who are poor. Legalizing organ donation would help both groups. See https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... .
        • kwhitefoot 10y ago
          Having a compulsory 'lottery' for organ donations for all would help both groups too.
          • witty_username 10y ago
            How would you incentivize donors? Are you saying we should force people to donate organs? That is horrible.
• gojiberry 10y ago
  Oh those liberals are coming for your guns!!! While these Repfucks silently fuck you from behind.
• throwaway198743 10y ago
  Wow! I wonder how long it will be before genetic tests become as pedestrian as finger prints.
• bikamonki 10y ago
  Modern-day nazis.
• randyrand 10y ago
  If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue. There are plenty of employers that don't require genetic information. If you don't want to give your genetic information to your employer it's simple, don't work there. Companies that can't hire employees go out of business. This is a self correction 'problem'. We don't need legislation here. Legislation almost always fails edge cases and is not needed for self correcting issues.
  • erlehmann_ 10y ago
    > If two consenting adults want to make a agreement that includes exchange of their own genetic information, I really don't see the issue. The problem is one of bargaining power: Consent must be given freely – but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. Example: If an employee is told by the boss he or she will be fired if they do not have sex right now, any consent in that scenario is not given freely, but under duress.
    • witty_username 10y ago
      The boss is threatening to abuse their power if they do not have sex. An employee can sue the boss for violating the contract. > but in cases where one party in an exchange has a lot more bargaining power, the other party often will agree to something because of fear of retribution or a threat of force. You seem to be implying this is bad thing but it makes sense that a company (could be thousands of people) should have more bargaining power than an employee (1 person). What is the threat of force here? That is illegal. What is the retribution here if an employee chooses a different employer because the employee wants to decline testing?
      • throwaway2048 10y ago
        what happens when all insurance plans make this a hard requirement, and you effectively can not be employed, or insured without it. Don't think it will happen? Try to get internet access, or medical insurance without agreeing to mandatory binding arbitration (that is, signing away your ability to sue).
• known 10y ago
  Is it applicable to Law makers?
• goombastic 10y ago
  The thing with emotionally polarizing bills such as this is that politicians manage to put in other clauses and items we tend to overlook while participating in the battle. We win the issue but we don't notice other things they might have slid in. What an age we live in, cant trust our own representatives. Time to bring back the threat of lynching as a deterrent.
  • jdormit 10y ago
    > Time to bring back the threat of lynching as a deterrent. ...please tell me this is a joke
  • JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > Time to bring back the threat of lynching as a deterrent Please don't do this here.
    • squozzer 10y ago
      Yes, we should march into the gas chambers for the good of America. Hail The Donald!
• brokenmasonjars 10y ago
  I suppose if this is passed it goes to the many reasons why I enjoy living my life trading with my own funds without the stability of holding a career with an employer. So far no drug tests is pretty much the winner but if genetic testing bill becomes law then I'm pretty sure that tops drug testing. I'm not a fan of background checks and I refuse to give references..but that's easy for me since I'm not applying to jobs. I wish more people collectively refused to participate in the whole reference thing as well. Nonetheless, I suspect this bill will become law and more things to occur to make working for employers even more invasive.
  • Buge 10y ago
    Why are you against references? My current job didn't require drug tests or references. Just resume + whiteboard coding.
    • brokenmasonjars 10y ago
      It's more of a personal preference than overt philosophical stance. I just don't think it's anyone's business where I'm applying or may end up working (I don't want the references to know where I'm applying or may end up working). Edit: switched "stance" for "preference"
• chimen 10y ago
  Employers collecting on death insurances might get a higher ROI now with access to such information isn't it? This gets too far.
• Exofunctor 10y ago
  While I think health insurance shouldn't be attached to employers, I don't really have an objection to insurance companies using genetic testing. This is certainly an unpopular opinion here, but as someone who believes that medical care is a service, not a right: I think it's unfair to force people to subsidize the healthcare of other people, regardless of the mechanism used. When you have car insurance, the insurance companies are allowed to use statistical techniques to predict how much you are going to cost them. Competition between insurance companies involves treading the line between beating the price of other insurance companies while charging slightly more than the customer is expected to cost. If we let health insurance companies do this, then yes, healthcare would get substantially more expensive for very risky/unhealthy people. Of course, it would also get drastically less expensive for healthy people. From a moral perspective, I think this is preferable, but obviously not everyone will agree. Now, from a utilitarian perspective, these two possibilities seem roughly equivalent at first glance. However, I'd argue that the latter (where insurance companies are allowed to set prices like car insurance) has a number of (significant) positive side effects. The largest side effect is that it incentivizes customer health improvement. A lot of health risks, including at least the top 6 causes of death worldwide (heart disease, stroke, lung infections, COPD, respiratory cancers, diabetes) can be substantially mitigated by personal choices such as diet and exercise. If you had to pay an extra $200/mo to your insurance company because you were morbidly obese, one would expect that this would encourage a lot of people to start eating better. Let the market do the heavy lifting! This is exactly the sort of thing that the market excels at. Society benefits from healthier people, but in almost all countries rich enough to have insurance (including the US and nations with socialized healthcare), there is no mechanism to incentivize this! An actual insurance market would do the job.
  • electricEmu 10y ago
    > I think it's unfair to force people to subsidize the healthcare of other people, regardless of the mechanism used. This is literally car insurance in the United States. You buy insurance, put money up front for your own health, or risk paying a penality. It's also literally the ACA. > If let health insurance companies do this, then yes, healthcare would get substantially more expensive for very risky/unhealthy people. Unaffordable. My mother in law died from cancer recently. Coverage was impossible before; in America's free market that constantly pays out dividends. The ACA was the first time any insurance was affordable. I'm sorry, but the views you've put forth appear to diminish the plight of others who aren't young and healthy. Those views and policies would kill my friend afflicted with an autoimmune disorder. _Edit: spelling_
• kondro 10y ago
  Can we genetically engineer our kids too so they stand a chance in the future?
• moonshinefe 10y ago
  This article is very scant on details and seems to muddy the waters by comparing things like cholesterol and smoking to genetic screening which doesn't seem to help things. If how they've framed it is true however, and this may become law, that's the final nail in the coffin for the GOP isn't it? What an absolutely nasty piece of legislation. I feel like the GOP got so much power since it's the usual "sick of the last 8 years" thing--but I think that may reverse fast if laws such as this start hitting people. Then again, I've unfortunately overestimated the US voters in the past. Please don't let it happen.
• tray5 10y ago
  I'm sorry to all Americans who may read this and get ruffled, but what the actual fuck is wrong with your political landscape and attitudes towards workers rights? Why don't you have unions? Why do Americans seem to hate unions? Why don't you have an active political party representing workers? Why don't you have an active movement to prevent your employer from becoming overseer of your entire life? All I see day in and day out from America is employers and capitalists finding another way to fuck the workers and there is not one iota of widespread organised resistance to this (or any of your other disgusting work legislation like "at will employment" or your complete desire to shoot yourselves in the foot with univ.healthcare) at all. Seriously what is the problem with your country that you've managed to manoeuvre yourselves as employees into a position where you are totally unable to counter the repeated and ceaseless violation of your ability to live with some sort of security and expectation of privacy against your employer. Your country is amazing, your people are lovely. But your politics and attitudes towards work, workers and their rights is abhorrent and disgusting. The thought of legislation like this arising in my country (Australia), where your employer is given free range to look into your genetic privacy is just unfathomable to me, and if it did happen there would be widespread protests organised by unions and political parties representing workers rights. Truly the attitude of seemingly the majority of Americans towards themselves and workers rights is gross, and frankly quite sad. You will only ever stop these sorts of gross violations of workers rights with even bargaining power between employee and employer, and there is only one way to achieve that (workers unionising)
  • kogepathic 10y ago
    > But your politics and attitudes towards work, workers and their rights is abhorrent and disgusting. Because the government providing anything for you is seen as a form of welfare or regulation that "kills jobs." Never mind that any senior in the US benefits hugely from Social Security and Medicare, making any proposed reform of those programs nearly political suicide. Just look at efforts to raise the retirement age if you think I'm kidding. So, not to sound like a whiney millennial, but the older generation already has programs which are quite socialist. However some Americans have still been duped into believing the "American dream" applies to them (it probably did if you were male and white in the 1950s) and thus anything that helps other people is "socialism" or "government overreach" Nevermind that the Republicans will happily reach into bedrooms (abortion) and bathrooms (transgender rights) to affect people's life. It's a complete farce to watch this unfolding in the US from Canada. Yeah, our healthcare isn't perfect, I don't think anyone said it was, but I don't have to worry about bankruptcy if I go to the hospital. Nor do I have to worry about politicians fucking me over w.r.t. healthcare.
• nthcolumn 10y ago
  Given her own lowly origins Virginia Foxx (opposed aid for Katrina, a bill against hate crime, hates gays - nice) you'd think someone like her would be against such forced disclosures. It won't affect her because she is nearly dead but her grandchildren will almost certainly carry defects causing hemoglobin mutations for sickle cell anemia, neurogenetic disorders and have increased risk for chromosomal disorders such as Downs. Republicans voting for this kind of widespread intrusion is like turkeys voting for xmas.
• westmeal 10y ago
  >A BILL: To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs. >prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements How on earth is any of this nondiscriminatory?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• I_am_neo 10y ago
  With logic like that, forced abortions could be "workplace wellness" programs.
• andrepd 10y ago
  Compare with https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/08/genetic-testing-bill-up-for-vote-is-constitutional-trudeau-says.html https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/08/genetic-testi...